Doom3 benchmarks on "normal PC's"
#32
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got a 2.5 fps increase going to the new Cat's & DX9c
It seems to play alot smoother with the updated drivers. Other games play the same.
It seems to play alot smoother with the updated drivers. Other games play the same.
#34
Scooby Regular
I posted earlier in the thread:-
Well i installed it tonight -
16.6FPS - goes up to 23.2 at 800x600
poo.......
edited to add - just spent an hour playing it - plays OK at 1024x768 - so dont rely too much on FPS
God damn does nobody have an Nvidia card anymore?
Wondering about my system - got game but not installed it yet
Athlon 400MhzFSB XP3200+ on Abit NF7
1024mb PC3200 400mhz DDR Dual Channelled
GF4 Ti 4200 (64mb)
Whaddya reckon?
I think i need a new graphics card.......
Wondering about my system - got game but not installed it yet
Athlon 400MhzFSB XP3200+ on Abit NF7
1024mb PC3200 400mhz DDR Dual Channelled
GF4 Ti 4200 (64mb)
Whaddya reckon?
I think i need a new graphics card.......
16.6FPS - goes up to 23.2 at 800x600
poo.......
edited to add - just spent an hour playing it - plays OK at 1024x768 - so dont rely too much on FPS
Last edited by Dr Hu; 10 August 2004 at 11:58 PM. Reason: added comment
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
50.8fps
Mind you, I'm not sure this qualifies as "normal" system....
XP3200+ at 218x11.0 (I hate hot weather)
512MB RAM
ATI 9800pro at 450/342
Update: I've had to turn the 9800 o/c down to 420/378 to get rid of artifacts, but FRAPS says I'm doing a fairly consistant 55-65fps in the game.
M
Mind you, I'm not sure this qualifies as "normal" system....
XP3200+ at 218x11.0 (I hate hot weather)
512MB RAM
ATI 9800pro at 450/342
Update: I've had to turn the 9800 o/c down to 420/378 to get rid of artifacts, but FRAPS says I'm doing a fairly consistant 55-65fps in the game.
M
Last edited by _Meridian_; 13 August 2004 at 11:20 PM.
#38
2148 frames rendered in 45.9 sec = 46.8 fps
P4 2.6c 512mb PC3200 128mb 9500 Pro.
Seems a reasonable score for my system.
gonna try upping the detail level etc to see what happens........
P4 2.6c 512mb PC3200 128mb 9500 Pro.
Seems a reasonable score for my system.
gonna try upping the detail level etc to see what happens........
#39
Hi Everybody!
I don't intend to run my system at 640x480 so, sorry but I haven't done this benchmark - its not representative of today's resolutions. Maybe I'll do it later.
I have a 1280x1024 LCD, and with LCDs being the way they are, thats the res I want to use. Here is what I found so far to help me do this...
Running at 1280x1024 on Medium default settings timedemo1 gave 24 fps. Actual in game experience - not quite good enough - feels heavy and sluggish.
Used the above tip to change the cache size from default setting of 20 to 128. This improved to 28 fps. I didn't bother to replay with these settings - probably wouldn't notice the difference.
Changed cache to 256 - no change - still 28 fps. Probably not worth fiddling with this any more - going to leave it at 128 for now.
Turned off "shadows" - 37 fps. Game is now much more playable - not so much lag when monsters are about. Haven't noticed any major effect on game visually. The only time I noticed a shadow anyway was when I shone my torch through a metal banister and it shadowed against the far wall. Nice, but not worth 10 fps in my opinion.
PC spec: 3.0Ghz, 800FSB + hyperthreading, 2x256 PC3200 (using DDR) Radion 9800 pro using latest non-beta drivers downloaded on Sunday. Note: ID tells you to get the latest drivers - the ones I had been using out of the box crashed the game (don't know what version they were).
I'm going to download the catalyst beta driver next and then try a bit of gentle overclocking but would be interested to know what folks think an extra 512 mb might do? Actually, I do have two 512 mb DDR sticks but they are different speeds one is 2700 and the other 3200. Is it worth sticking these in? Would they both run at the default lower speed or would they crash the machine do you think?
Cheers!
PS as for folks wanting to play this on the xbox, I don't have an xbox but won't the resolution you play at be limited by your telly at about 625 lines? And most tellys are still interlaced aren't they? Also do Xboxes have a mouse attachment? You'll never be any good at shooters using a gamepad - just can't turn round fast enough!
I don't intend to run my system at 640x480 so, sorry but I haven't done this benchmark - its not representative of today's resolutions. Maybe I'll do it later.
I have a 1280x1024 LCD, and with LCDs being the way they are, thats the res I want to use. Here is what I found so far to help me do this...
Running at 1280x1024 on Medium default settings timedemo1 gave 24 fps. Actual in game experience - not quite good enough - feels heavy and sluggish.
Used the above tip to change the cache size from default setting of 20 to 128. This improved to 28 fps. I didn't bother to replay with these settings - probably wouldn't notice the difference.
Changed cache to 256 - no change - still 28 fps. Probably not worth fiddling with this any more - going to leave it at 128 for now.
Turned off "shadows" - 37 fps. Game is now much more playable - not so much lag when monsters are about. Haven't noticed any major effect on game visually. The only time I noticed a shadow anyway was when I shone my torch through a metal banister and it shadowed against the far wall. Nice, but not worth 10 fps in my opinion.
PC spec: 3.0Ghz, 800FSB + hyperthreading, 2x256 PC3200 (using DDR) Radion 9800 pro using latest non-beta drivers downloaded on Sunday. Note: ID tells you to get the latest drivers - the ones I had been using out of the box crashed the game (don't know what version they were).
I'm going to download the catalyst beta driver next and then try a bit of gentle overclocking but would be interested to know what folks think an extra 512 mb might do? Actually, I do have two 512 mb DDR sticks but they are different speeds one is 2700 and the other 3200. Is it worth sticking these in? Would they both run at the default lower speed or would they crash the machine do you think?
Cheers!
PS as for folks wanting to play this on the xbox, I don't have an xbox but won't the resolution you play at be limited by your telly at about 625 lines? And most tellys are still interlaced aren't they? Also do Xboxes have a mouse attachment? You'll never be any good at shooters using a gamepad - just can't turn round fast enough!
#40
Ready for this guys
XP2000+
1GB PC2100 RAM (One stick is 2700, but becuase the other is 2100....)
Geforce FX 5700LE
I get 18fps at 1024x768
If I drop it to 640x480 (medium detail still) I get 29.9 fps
Might turn off shadows later and see if there's a difference.
XP2000+
1GB PC2100 RAM (One stick is 2700, but becuase the other is 2100....)
Geforce FX 5700LE
I get 18fps at 1024x768
If I drop it to 640x480 (medium detail still) I get 29.9 fps
Might turn off shadows later and see if there's a difference.
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a quick update (if you are still doing this)....
Tweaked a few things in the bios (nothing too drastic). No overclocking being done, just AGP apertures and some memory things. Upgraded some drivers.
AMD Athlon 2400+
512MB RAM
Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro
2148 frames in 61.2
35.1 fps
Tweaked a few things in the bios (nothing too drastic). No overclocking being done, just AGP apertures and some memory things. Upgraded some drivers.
AMD Athlon 2400+
512MB RAM
Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro
2148 frames in 61.2
35.1 fps
#46
As it happens I too just upgraded memory from 2x256 DDR 400 to 2x512 DDR400 and got about 2 more FPS - bit dissapointed, thought this might have helped more.
I have a question also....
Are folks reporting the results from their first run of the demo or the second? I find I get about 5-7 more fps the second run - presumably because of disc cashing. From an in-game perspective, which is more representative. The first run, I would think?
I have a question also....
Are folks reporting the results from their first run of the demo or the second? I find I get about 5-7 more fps the second run - presumably because of disc cashing. From an in-game perspective, which is more representative. The first run, I would think?
#47
I know you said "normal", but this may interest a few.
Just before I do a mega full upgrade...
CPU-AMD 1800+ Athlon
MEM-512mb
GFX-modded x800PRO (ramped up to x800XT spec)
35fps
This is pretty awesome considering mobo, cpu & ram
Regards,
Shaun.
Just before I do a mega full upgrade...
CPU-AMD 1800+ Athlon
MEM-512mb
GFX-modded x800PRO (ramped up to x800XT spec)
35fps
This is pretty awesome considering mobo, cpu & ram
Regards,
Shaun.
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MY99->MY02->996->MY06STI in Herts / Beds / Bucks
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm....
Reading this thread with interest - looks like my PIII 450 /512Mb is going to need a bit of an upgrade...
Now if only my twin ItaniumII at work could run it instead of HPUX
If I went for one of these upgrades - what graphics should I add ? I assume my GForce2 64Mb wont be up to it.
T.
Reading this thread with interest - looks like my PIII 450 /512Mb is going to need a bit of an upgrade...
Now if only my twin ItaniumII at work could run it instead of HPUX
If I went for one of these upgrades - what graphics should I add ? I assume my GForce2 64Mb wont be up to it.
T.
#49
Set my new PC up....
AMD A64 3800+ CPU
OCZ 1GB Dual Channel 3500 Ram
x800PRO (clocked and modded to XT spec)
1024x768, medium detail all effects @ 87fps
1600x(what ever it is), Ultra Detail all effects @ 55fps
Need to do some more tweaking though to bust the 90fps / 60fps barriers! lol
Regards,
Shaun.
AMD A64 3800+ CPU
OCZ 1GB Dual Channel 3500 Ram
x800PRO (clocked and modded to XT spec)
1024x768, medium detail all effects @ 87fps
1600x(what ever it is), Ultra Detail all effects @ 55fps
Need to do some more tweaking though to bust the 90fps / 60fps barriers! lol
Regards,
Shaun.
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sweet!
The x800 won't break the 95's afaik
You can post your resuts up directly now:
http://www.doom3benchmarks.com/
The x800 won't break the 95's afaik
You can post your resuts up directly now:
http://www.doom3benchmarks.com/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fatboy_coach
General Technical
15
18 June 2016 03:48 PM
Bazil_SW
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
24
21 September 2015 11:55 PM