Doom3 Benchmarks out!

At 1024x768 with very high settings
(4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF).

Those numbers were timedemos, not actual in game framerates
which would be much lower.

Jeff B

ATI hard their cards out first.

Neither ATI or nvidia have their top of the line cards out.

Jeff B

"magnulus" wrote in message
...

If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in
Doom III, you're a fool. End of line.

Couldn't agree more, especially when you consider that in three years
it's going to be selling on eBay for 40 bucks. Video cards have very very
short life-cycles.


RayO

"NightSky 421" wrote in message ...
"rms" wrote in message
...
http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
version was $345 shipped from provantage).

rms



I thought it was a good article and it makes me happy I have a 9800 Pro
video card. However, I can't wait to see how Doom 3 plays on systems that
are a little more "real world". For example, I hope they bench it on
processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. I'd
like to see an all-round comparison with as many combinations of CPU and
video cards as possible.

Thanks for posting that link!


According to the article Doom3 will come with a time demo, so just run
the time demo with your card and start a thread with your hardware.
Then after a couple of weeks someone can put all the data in a
spreadsheet and give an accounting for the cards that are listed. What
gets me, is there is no mention of Multiplayer game play anywhere.
When I get the game this will be one of the first things I will check
out, cause it will determine the longevity of the game.

Gnu_Raiz

Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was the
definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another thing:
Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing
straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering OFF?

Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are
plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF
puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing
those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF...



"GuitarMan" wrote in message
...

"Darkfalz" wrote in message
...
"rms" wrote in message
...
http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my
pny
version was $345 shipped from provantage).

They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.

My thoughts exactly...

Damn, I ****ed up.......their last benchmark shows 1024x768, medium detail
level, with no aa and no AF......50+ fps.

Perfectly acceptable for me, and a Pro 9800 overclocked should come in
somewhere in that ballpark.

"HeadRusch" wrote in message
news:wORLc.144389$IQ4.71080@attbi_s02...
Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was
the
definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another
thing:
Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing
straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering
OFF?

Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are
plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF
puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing
those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF...



"GuitarMan" wrote in message
...

"Darkfalz" wrote in message
...
"rms" wrote in message
...
http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my
pny
version was $345 shipped from provantage).

They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.

My thoughts exactly...

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:52:06 -0400, "magnulus"
wrote:

If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in
Doom III, you're a fool. End of line.


GeForce 6800 line works fine in other games too. They do trail behind
X800XT-PE in some DX9 games but not by much. Granted ATI still has to
optimise their memory controller (which, I read somewhere, is running
at 60-70% efficiency) and they are also rewriting their openGl drivers
from scratch. You can expect more optimisations from nVidia as well.

IMO, X800XT-PE is a better choice (if you can find it, that is) than
6800Ultra and 6800GT is better than X800Pro, given their MSRPs and
also the power requirements.

The bottomline is that these are all great cards and should run most
of the Source/Doom3/CryEngine/UT based games without any problems.
--
Noman

"magnulus" wrote in message
...

No... I parted with 400 dollars for the GeForce FX 5900 card. I'm not
going to fall for NVidia's crap a second time. Nothing sucks worse than
to
have a brand new videocard become underpowered technology in only five
months.



Even Maximum PC magazine was sucked into using a high-end GeForce FX card
as part of their Dream Machine last year. A few months later, they
admitted that they made the wrong decision. It sounds like you and them
experienced the same thing.

On 22 Jul 2004 07:46:18 -0400, Nick Vargish
wrote:

"NightSky 421" writes:

For example, I hope they bench it on processors 1.5GHz and up with
GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up.

From the article:

"As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4
box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good
gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce
3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming
experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software
designed it to be."

Not a benchmark, but at least it's positive (if subjective).

Nick

Fingers crossed then.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:47 +0100, Stoneskin wrote:

Mark Morrison left a note on my windscreen which said:

Yep - so much for seeing how my GeForce 3 performed at 1024x768.

I also loved the line "We figured that 1600x1200 resolution would be
the place to start..."

WTF ?

I assume this article is aimed at people with high-end system,
presumably overclocked ones.

Who the **** plays games in 1600x1200 ? And on what ? A 23" monitor
???

I do a fair bit. 22" monitor.

Jesus - on my old 21", I though 1024x768 was a good resolution for
games.

Shows how often I upgrade my gfx card, I suppose.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !