Doom 3 benchmarking

Sir Random

Massive Performance boost for some mid-range cards:

In your DOOM 3 directory, find "DoomConfig.cfg"
(x:\Program Files\Doom 3\base)

Open DoomConfig.cfg in Notepad.

Find the line:
seta image_cacheMegs "32"

change the 32 to 128 (or 256 or 512, up to half your system ram)

http://www.forumplanet.com/planetdoom/topic.asp?fid=5733&tid=1438663

vishal

it is just my graphics card (9800 pro) cos when i get close up to textures i see they are very low res and very pixelaly? why didn't they use high res textures?

KdjaCL

vishal wrote:

it is just my graphics card (9800 pro) cos when i get close up to textures i see they are very low res and very pixelaly? why didn't they use high res textures?

That happens when i turn AA off? Have you turned it off?

kdjac

Mutant_Fruit

"seta image_cacheMegs "32""

Mine was set to 20

EDIT: I went from 16fps on second run, to 22 fps on second run when i increased from 20 to 256. Now, to re-overclock everything. My 9600 (which i was so proud of a few weeks ago) is creaking badly

CombatCow

An intresting post here,claims to get better detail textures ''ultra new'' with his config file.

http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000249.html?


CC

vishal

i was running it with aa2x af8x 1028*768. even in i raise the res and filtering it still looks the same. the stuff looks gorgeous, it's just when is would say walk into a wall to examine the detail of the textures.

edit
i just used that config file, made things look even sharper but still a little blurred. you should all try it out, was getting even better fps.

KdjaCL

Try knocking up AA to 4 or increasing res , i found they looked fine when that was on. But i did see some odd texturing, could just stay away from the walls .

kdjac

vishal

here is a pic of it in with the new config file. right in the centre. that is the max res my lcd monitor will do, besides i don't think it will run smoothat anything higher. i can live with it, just wondering why it is happening and is it happening to other people? aa doesn't fix it.

CivilServant

Copied the latest 3.9 cats opengl driver to the same folder as doom3.exe Tis a simplier way of testing out the opengl performance.

1600x1200 8AF+2AA

First run - 36 fps
Second run - 44.1 fps

Nice jump, thanks Ati!!

Matfinn

Hey guys

I have a GE force FX 5200 card with 128mb memory. I also have this

Amd athlon XP 2800
512 mb ram

Do any of you have experiences running this game pn similar computers with good results ?

gobby

Hey lads,

I've been hearing a lot bout this game. Can't wait to get my hands on it. I will be back in Ireland in a matter of weeks and can look into getting it. Thing is my pc is a bit out of date. Most noticable is my gfx. Its a Ti4200 128Mb. The rest of the system is old enough too but I reckon with a new gfx everything would be okay.

The rest of the spec is: p4 2Ghz @ 400 fsb, 512Mb DDR ram (Cant remember speed).

I am thinking of getting a 9800 pro.

Do ye think that this system as is would run Doom III okay?

Or if I got my grubby little hands on a 9800 pro would everything be okay?

Thing is I cant really afford to upgrade much else. Obviously the next thing to be upgraded would be the cpu but I wont be able to afford it!

BKtje

Both pcs will run the game tho i duno know at what settings.

A good gfx card helps a lot. CC's system is a 2ghz Xp and he can run ultra 1600* with a 6800 ultra without much problems.

bambam

As for the question on maxfps being locked to 60. It appears to be so, confirmed here from Rob Duffy's blog : http://www.webdog.org/plans/313/

========
Another question I have had multiple emails about, yes the game is capped at 60fps for normal game play. For render demos, like what was used for the HARD OCP stuff, we run those at full tilt which is why you will see > 60fps.
=======

OfflerCrocGod

gobby wrote:

I've been hearing a lot bout this game. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

It's not actually that good

Mutant_Fruit

Its locked at 60fps s that the physics work out correctly. I can't remember the details, but i believe it was mentioned before that in quake3 you couldn't jump at certain frames, so if you pressed the button at the wrong time, you wouldn't actually jump...

Whatever the reason, it was a good reason. Besides, i sincerely doubt anyone can reliably tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps ingame. (not screen refresh).

pebble

Damn, I read something recently on the sort of specs needed to run the game, but I cant remember where. I think you might find out more about it from one of the developers blogs.
Anyway, its says that to get the best performance, you really need a 512MB graphics card. A 256 would be pretty good, a top of the range 128 would me medium settings and a 64 MB card was the lowest you could possibly go. I presume he is talking about todays standards of cards. After all, I still have an old Herules 4500 64mg sitting around somewhere that would probably run at about 15 fps!

And I bet they ain't usin' AMD Athlon 2200+ either!

ykt0di9url7bc3

Second run = 45.0fps
640x480 - Medium Detail
AA & AF turned off

Second run = 39.1fps
800x600 - Medium Detail
AA & AF turned off

Second run = 29.1fps
1024x768- Medium Detail
AA & AF turned off

Athalon XP 2500+
GeForce 4 Ti4800 SE | 301/605 (nice card for overclocking)
512Mb Dual DDR 2700
NForce 2 Motherboard - (makes a hell of a difference)

I was impressed with my systems performance especially my gf4 to step up to the challenge and deliever so well - at its overclocked setttings... original settings 250/550

I play 640x480, the same res as I play Quake3 at

Mutant_Fruit

So, what drivers give best performance for the 9600 series of ATI cards. I need to boost doom3 performance as much as possible. It looks like people with such "old" technology won't be benefiting from new drivers

netman

1600 x 1200 High setting

first run: 41 fps
second run: 49 fps

P4 3.2C @ 3.5 GHz
X800 Pro softmodded to XT (520/560 MHz)
512MB OCZ PC3700 Gold edition RAM - cas2

Catalyst 4.7

Didn't bother with the beta, it runs quite fast just the way it is
Looking forward to the full release of 4.8.

CivilServant

netman, u should try the 4.9 cats, nice boost. Got 51 fps @ 1600x1200 high quality noAA

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.