Warp2Search.net » News » August 2004 » Doom 3 benchmarking

At last the game we were all wainting for was oficially announced... And just a day after that we see a lot of people benchmarking their PCs with the game. The results we are seeing are far far away from what is a good framerate for a 3D Shooter. On high-end systems equiped with 5900/9800 series videocards with high detail at resolutions of 1024x768 we get around 30-40 frames per second average... and on computers equipped with 6800 series videocard framerates reach around 60-70. Read some interesting information about Doom 3 benchmarking

MagamiAKO Unregistered

#55719 Posted on: 08/04/2004 09:36 PM This guy seems to be a naysayer about anything related to Doom 3. And then when it comes to Half Life 2, I bet he's going to sit there and say how great Valve is and how wonderful their engine is in every way and all of that good junk. I would take this guy's opinions with a grain of salt. For one, low quality really does not look all THAT bad. Yes, it's noticeable--if you're looking for it. From far away, however, (i.e. standing behind someone and watching them play it), the game still looks just as incredible as medium detail--and it runs great. This guy seems like he expects 100-200FPS out of every game that ever comes out. I guess he's been relatively new to gaming, but in the old days most of us could not get anything close to that and even getting above 30 was a feat in and of itself. In all honesty, Doom 3 handles itself very well based on whatever video card you have. You can have the lowest end card and have a great experience. Sure, the high end cards might be jipped a little bit in certain instances, but the key is to get that well-rounded experience. This will look very good to companies that want to buy into the engine and reach the largest audience possible. For reference as to how Doom 3 handles well, just look at games such as Far Cry and what it does. Far Cry does not scale. On "lower end" hardware, you have to turn off various effects (plants, animals, water effects). Entire ways things are rendered are turned off on lower end hardware (the lighting in DX9 hardware vs. the DX8 hardware), and things of that sort. It goes on and on to the point that to get the absolute most out of what Far Cry has to offer, you have to have the best in video hardware. On the contrary, with the exception of a few things, the only thing that really changes in Doom 3 is the texture resolution and compression. You don't get jipped on various features. They don't turn off mirrors or bump mapping. They don't get rid of the shadows and they don't turn off the videos on the computers or make buttons function differently. Despite not taking advantage of the latest and greatest that Pixel Shaders 2.0 has to offer, you cannot deny that id has done an absolutely fantastic job on bringing the Doom 3 experience to everyone that has bought 3d gaming hardware in the past 2-3 years. Now, does anyone remember benchmarking in the original Doom? My frame rate on my 386sx 33 with 4MB of ram was only about 3-4 dots....if you remember that

Insane Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2001-11-20

#55721 Posted on: 08/04/2004 09:51 PM Not sure what system he has, but I pull average 55fps @ 1024 res with hih settings. 9800xt 256mb

Domingo Unregistered

#55722 Posted on: 08/04/2004 09:53 PM Yeah, I haven't noticed much of a difference in detail between medium and high...and in all reality it looks nearly as good in 800X600. I tend to go with 1024X768 on medium. The main thing I've noticed about the game is that my framerate spikes in either direction quite a bit. I'm running a P4 3.2 and a 9800 pro. One second I'll be seemingly getting 60+ FPS and then it'll drop down to 20'ish randomly. While it's not really something to complain about, it's pretty unique for me. Also...anyone else getting eyestrain from the game? No matter what I do (resolution, gamma, refresh rates over 85, etc.) my eyes are worn out after playing for 20 minutes.

MagamiAKO Unregistered

#55723 Posted on: 08/04/2004 10:01 PM I pull 30-50FPS depending on the area, sometimes in the 20s on my Athlon XP 1.92Ghz/333Mhz FSB. A Geforce 4 Ti4200 128MB card OC'd from 250/444 to 290/490. I run 1024x768 medium quality. What this guy is implying isn't that the game isn't playable. He's implying that 30-50FPS in games isn't acceptable, and that we should see the highest end systems get 200FPS. He's implying that you go out and spend $500 on a video card, $400 on a CPU, and $300 in ram, that it should get you a bit more than just 50FPS. As I stated before, these are statements made by a person who has not been playing computer games for very long. Doom 3 is playable on virtually anything up to 3 years old. It scales well, giving the best experience all around. I honestly think that's what they were aiming for. For many of these other games, they come out and they make you go "Damn I wish I had X feature on my card to be able to play that game." And I think id wanted to sell a game. They didn't want to sell something you benchmarked. They wanted to sell a game that works on computer hardware and that you can play. Not something you rush out to buy new hardware for just to benchmark or take pretty screenshots.

FailedCRC Unregistered

#55728 Posted on: 08/04/2004 11:42 PM i play ns, q3 and q2 mostly. even having got so used to 100fps (vsynced) i'm finding doom3 fine to play at an average of about 30 - which i find suprising as i was expecting to have to upgrade from my ti4600 to get a decent experience

DJZaagmans Unregistered

#55729 Posted on: 08/05/2004 12:20 AM Why is he wining anyway? In short, there is no clear-cut answer, but the average person struggles to see much difference on a computer screen displaying above 30-40 fps. Of course, more FPS is nice in geekterms, but anything above the 30 range is good, because the average gamer simply isn't a professional jet fighter.

Cellar_Dweller Senior Member Posts: 152 Joined: 2003-02-03

#55731 Posted on: 08/05/2004 12:22 AM I have an Athlon XP 3200+, 1gig of ram and a 5800 Ultra and running the demo I get 31.9 fps in game doing the old timedemo demo1... Let me stress this though I have my settings at 1024x768 32bit and 144hz refresh rate (Locked in the registry for all games) and I played the demo and game with the EXTREME or whatever they call the highest setting and give all kinds of warnings about when setting everything that high... I have no stutter, skip or lag of any kind while playing - and what I can't understand is who cares if you get 200-600 fps it doesn't matter - the eye can only see 30 fps anything lower then of course starts to lag or slow down. Full motion video is 30fps so what does it matter if you have over that, 30 is just right for any game and unless you have some super human powers you can't really notice faster fps anyway... It's just a number and means absolutely nothing for game play if you have over that 30... My point is if you stay above 30 then you will play any game perfectly fine and never notice anything wrong and it will be smooth the lag only comes once you drop below that...

Scuse Unregistered

#55732 Posted on: 08/05/2004 12:26 AM yep my eyes hurt after bout 20 minutes too. i am getting the same weird fps results also, up and down. i am running an fx5950 and an athlon 2800

thomas997 Junior Member Posts: 12 Joined: 2003-04-21

#55733 Posted on: 08/05/2004 12:48 AM "the eye can only see 30 fps anything lower then of course starts to lag or slow down." Please dont say this because it is just wrong. Tests have been done For quick "proof", set your monitor on the lowest refresh possible. You will clearly see the flicker, even at around 60hz. Movies are different because the image stays "imprinted" on our eyes. So one frame blends into the next and doesnt seem jumpy. Run doom 3 on Medium, not Ultra. I cannot tell the difference in quality, but I CAN tell the difference in smoothness from gaining 15fps.

thomas997 Junior Member Posts: 12 Joined: 2003-04-21

#55735 Posted on: 08/05/2004 12:51 AM 30fps might be alright, IF it were constant. But we are talking an average of 30 fps.. at points it can drop to say 15 or 20fps. Then jump to 60, which averages out. A lot of people are having this problem, opening a door in doom will drop their fps for a second or so.

Domingo Unregistered

#55736 Posted on: 08/05/2004 01:05 AM Glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels like I'm going blind after playing. At first I even thought something might be wrong with the lighting, but some scenes are lit perfectly normally. I just find myself getting VERY close to the screen and struggling to see anything that's not right in front of me.

Domingo Unregistered

#55737 Posted on: 08/05/2004 01:10 AM Agreed 100%. The 30FPS thing is just simply not true. Watch a game running at a SOLID 60 FPS and one that AVERAGES 60FPS and tell me you can't tell the difference. Even just run Doom 1 on a 3DFX card at 35FPS and then run it on a Radeon 9700 at 100FPS and tell me they look the same. Run Halo for the PC and put it on the 30FPS lock and then again with the scaling FPS and tell me there's no difference. The 30FPS concept is a myth that's around simply because it's the number of frames per second film and has been for a long time.

DJZaagmans Unregistered

#55738 Posted on: 08/05/2004 02:01 AM I read some info a while back about ID stressing users to defrag before install. Not for nothing, so it seems. Anywho, I would prefer 30 constant over 20 - 60 variable anyday too.

popalazarous Junior Member Posts: 5 Joined: 2004-01-03

#55741 Posted on: 08/05/2004 09:09 AM hi, i reckon the textures dont look quite finished, but i think its because id have had to make this game possible on an xbox, similar situation with halo and thief3. The game is still good but it could have been a lot better if it was a sole pc game with only the pc in mind.

Warp2Search.net » News » August 2004 » Doom 3 benchmarking