Slashdot Mirror


Official Doom 3 Benchmarks Released

Rogerpq3 writes "Before the game goes on sale, id Software has been kind enough to release some benchmarks for DOOM 3 with the latest video cards on the market from NVIDIA & ATI. HardOCP has published the five page article which should help anyone trying to decide if they should upgrade their video card for DOOM 3. There's also an introductory note from John Carmack, mentioning: 'The benchmarking was conducted on-site, and the hardware vendors did not have access to the demo before hand, so we are confident that there is no egregious cheating going on.', and the HardOCP writers comment: '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.'"

17 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Of course... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course Nvidia's card is going to do better. Doom3 has a specialized codepath for nvidia hardware, while the ATI card does not.

    If a codepath were written for the X800 series of cards, I'm sure the scores would be closer to each other.

    I take the superiority of one card over the other with a grain of salt.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Of course... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BS.

      There is no way Carmack would neglect almost half of the gamers out there. The fact is, Radeons have always had less than stellar performance with OpenGL. They are built for D3D.

    2. Re:Of course... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fortunately we don't all have the same needs. The diversity of the marketplace means that there is room for both approaches. This also results in a greater number of choices for us.

      BTW, I am under the impression the Matrox still makes some kick ass OpenGL cards for the HIGH END.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:Of course... by Seft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With the new cards in the GeForce series you have expensive requirements like massive power supplies extra slots, high-end cooling, and you need to not mind the dustbuster sound coming from your machine

      Massive Power Supplies: 6800 GTs are happy in shuttles with 250W PSUs

      Extra Slots: The 6800 and GT are single-slot

      High-end Cooling: See whats cooling your CPU, then count the transistors on each. Besides, it's much better to have a good cooling solution with headroom for overclocking than something that barely makes the grade

      Dustbuster Sound: I think you're confusing the 6800 series with a certain FX card. Besides, there is nothing stopping third-party manufacturers changing the fan, and many do.


      supid things like bringing back SLI

      SLI is a really good idea - it allows those who want to to have a very fast setup without increasing the price for those who are content with a fast setup.


      Now NVidia is positioning itself in the difficult, obtrusive ultra-high end space where 3Dfx was when it died.

      Not at all. nVidia has sold zillions of FX5200s to OEMs.

    4. Re:Of course... by AftanGustur · · Score: 2, Insightful



      Massive Power Supplies: 6800 GTs are happy in shuttles with 250W PSUs


      If you take out the CPU and Hard disks, yes.

      Actually, a *good* 350W PSU can handle the task.


      High-end Cooling: See whats cooling your CPU, then count the transistors on each.


      You miss the point, the complaint was that that video card was making to much noise .. You can't explain or justify that by pointing at something else.



      Dustbuster Sound: I think you're confusing the 6800 series with a certain FX card. Besides, there is nothing stopping third-party manufacturers changing the fan, and many do.


      Now, and why would third party manufacturers change the fan unless there was a problem with it ??

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    5. Re:Of course... by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And one of the reasons that Carmack says that the framerate is not the be-all/end-all benchmark is that even though the ATi cards run OpenGL a bit slower than nVidia cards, they usually render a slightly better picture (better AA, beter AF, less color banding, etc ...). This is one of the reasons why he actually said he thought the Radeon would be a good choice for Doom 3 (last year at E3) as this was an obvious difference in the Radeon 9800/GeForce FX iteration. I don't know if nVidia has improved their rendering quality since then, but if they didn't, then the choice in video card is more complicated than just framerate.

      For me, though, the biggest factor for me will probably be features & price. I'm a big fan of the All In Wonder series for that.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    6. Re:Of course... by woodhouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realise you're desperate to draw a parallel with 3DFX somewhere, but things have moved on a bit since it was all about fill-rate. In fact, it was precisely because it wasn't all about fill-rate that 3DFX died (hardware T&L on the geforce being the final nail in its coffin). I think you'll find that programmable pipelines have been pretty successful too.

      More programmability is not just a gimmick, it's where real-time graphics is heading.

  2. Uh, hello? by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about some benchmarks for a card I actually have, like a ti4800? ;-) Saying "suprisingly good gaming experience" on a GF4MX means nothing... are you seeing a creepy title screen and playing a pong minigame, or actually seeing 30fps+?

    Sorry, but dropping $500 on a video card is just not an option, this would be more useful if we had some everyday specs.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Uh, hello? by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? That's not at all what I get from reading the article. The framerates reported are remarkably good even for the Nvidia 5950, and they claimed it was quite playable on a Geforce 3. Judging from all that I would guess you could probably manage something in the 800x600 to 1024x768 range, medium effects at 30-40fps on a Geforce 4, and possibly even better.

      All this stuff about buying new cards is mostly a pissing competition. I have seen nothing in the reported hardware requirements, nor benchmarks that would imply you couldn't get a very satisfactory game of a Geforce 4.

      Jedidiah

  3. Re:yea i agree with this by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they have only 3 cards listed in the test and none of htem are widely in use

    Keep R'ing TFA -- they test (1) nVidia Geforce6800 Ultra (1st place with a bullet), (2) nVidia Geforce6800GT (strong second), (3) ATI X800XT-PE (3rd and more costly than (2)), (4) and (5) nVidia GeForceFX5950 and ATI9800XT (pretty much a tie -- ATI is a tad faster with AF [anisotopic filtering] but no AA [anti-aliasing], add in the AA and nVidia edges ahead.)

    That's five, and at least two of them are what I'd call "widely in use." YMMV.

    --
    everything in moderation
  4. Re:ATI by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last I heard/saw, the 6800 still needed 2 molex connectors, and took up two expansion slots, sounded like a jet engine, and required a minimum 400 watt power supply. The ATI card uses much quieter cooling, requires one slot, and one power connector. For a machine that's on 24 hours a day in the same room I sleep in, noise is a big factor. If I needed the caliber performance of the latest/greatest card, and had an extra 400 to spend on a video card who's price will most likely be half that in 6-8 months, the extra $100 would be worth it, when factors other than an extra 3-5 fps come into play.

    That's not to say I don't respect Nvidia, I swapped out a Radeon 9700 pro for a GF4 Ti4200 in this box, because the linux drivers from Nvidia gave me slightly better performance and much more stability in most of the OpenGL apps I'm running.

    Which brings up another question- how will the native linux version of Doom III compare to it's windows counterpart?

  5. This review tells us nothing by d_jedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're running the most recent CPU/GPU with a $hitload of RAM.. you're going to have a good gaming experience

    WELL NO SHIT! What did you expect? The game to only run acceptably on hardware that doesn't exist yet? Geez..

    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

    Why no benchmarks of this? IMO much more useful than a benchmark of a P4 3.6GHz system with 4GB of RAM and a 6800 Ultra..

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  6. Re:The Bottom Line by vehn23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just as an aside I picked up a geforce 6800 non-ultra last month and could not be more pleased with its performance - and it requires only one slot and a "standard" 300W power supply.

  7. Reread the article, carefully this time by adiposity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you implying that Carmack made the above statement? Because...he didn't. That's Kyle Bennet, the author of the HardOCP article speaking. Carmack only made the brief statement at the beginning (it's color coded to help you spot it), which states that "all of the modern cards play the game very well," and "there is no egregious cheating going on," and most importantly, "Nvidia drivers have been tuned for Doom's primary light/surface interaction fragment program."

    I don't think Doom3 will be significantly changed to help out ATI, but I'm positive ATI will change their drivers to help out Doom3's performance. As Carmack pointed out, the Nvidia drivers have already been fine tuned for Doom. My guess is that ATI, after the fiasco with releasing the Doom alpha, hasn't had as much opportunity to optimize for Doom.

    On the other hand, it's no surprise to see ATI losing to a card that obviously has more horsepower. Frankly, I'm impressed that a card that's so much cooler, smaller, and quieter does so well against Nvidia's monster. But in this case, at least, we see Nvidia's power fully utilized. Hopefully, ATI gets so more performance out of theirs, though.

    -Dan

  8. Define "remarkably good" by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just a couple of quick notes. First off, you must bear in mind that all of the cards they tested are DX9 capable, this is going to help out framerates quite a bit. In fact, when you look at benchmarks for the newer games, framerates drop off quite a bit when you start looking at cards like the GeForce 4.

    More importantly, the boxes they did the benchmarking on were maxed out with specs like 2GB of DDR400 and an Athlon 64 or comparable processor. Unless you've got all the other specs to match the test box, you're looking at the best possible framerates you can get under the very best possible conditions on those systems. In addition to that, they had anti-aliasing turned off for several of those benchmarks.

    Now compare those 60-70fps on that kind of box with whatever setup you've got...then swap out the video card for a GeForce 4Ti 4X00 and you're looking at maybe25-30fps with medium effects at 1024x768. That's almost unplayable.

    Granted, I'm doing a good bit of guessing here, but this comes from a number of years of experience playing the latest games on older hardware. The basic sys-req's for the game are a GF3 or better - we can interpret that to mean it'll give you about 25fps at 800x600 with all the eye candy turned off if you're sporting a top-of-the-line GeForce 3. I doubt you're going to see good performance out of Doom 3 without anything better than a GeForce FX 5600.

    Luckily, we'll all find out in a little less than two weeks :-D

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  9. Re:This is why i love iD by TrancePhreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you set everything to maximum or did you lower it? I found that terrain could be on high or normal and everything else needed to be normal except characters. Characters needed to be on low.

    --

    -]Phreak Out[-
  10. How cute! by raygundan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Awwww, the wide-eyed innocents are posting! Look at this one-- he actually believes that one of the graphics card manufacturers is NOT cheating! It's tough life-lesson time, kiddo-- they BOTH have a history of cheating. Also, there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny was paid $5M by ATI to optimize his egg-rendering scheme for their hardware.

    Nvidia Cheating

    ATI Cheating