Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    4,308

    Cool Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    Quick FSB Overclocking Performance Investigation

    Just before we present you with our benchmarks, we want to make note of one important factor. We overclocked our AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processor 100MHz and 200MHz over default via FSB and at both overclocked settings our average FPS at 1024 x 768 0X AA / 8X AF did not increase over one frame per second.

    This tells us that Doom 3 is very graphics card dependent and because of this should soon prove to be a popular benchmark in graphics cards review from many review websites. We’ll certainly be adding it to our graphics card benchmark suites straight away.


    It's almost ready!
    Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
    Managing Director
    Tweak Town Pty Ltd

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    Awesome, but there's no front side bus on an Athlon 64... That's why they're so much faster than other processors. Some BIOSes will still use FSB as the overclocking term, but it's not really FSB. Just being picky.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    After reading that article (a week a ago was it? two minutes after you put it up there...) on Doom 3 benchmarking, I realized that some of the inconsistencies were explanable by the fact that time demos aren't as CPU-intensive as the actual game, so GPU limitation was seen in areas where it shouldn't have (even for such a GPU-intensive game, some stuff was rediculous).

    That said, there are still some parts that make absolutely no sense. The Athlon XP 2500 system outperforms the Athlon 64 3000 system. The FX5700 Ultra on the 3000 has best playable settings of 800x600@Medium quality. The XP 2500 has best playable settings of 800x600@High Quality OR 1024x768@Medium quality. Now how does that make any sense? The Athlon 64 3000 beats the Athlon XP 3200 in every single benchmark I've ever seen (including Doom 3 at Anandtech), and this is a 2500, not a 3200. On benchmarks, or through specs the XP 2500 doesn't have any advantages over the Athlon 64 3000, so what the hell (no pun intended)?

    There's also the fact that my Athlon XP 2200 system (haven't tried on my 2GHz P4 with 9800 Pro yet) with a Radeon 9600 and 512MB of PC2100 RAM outperforms their 2500 with 9600XT (and their Athlon 64 with FX5700). Even with all the tweaking I've done, that's still a bit odd...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    Test Ran with the Comp in my Sig" Below.
    I Ran each test once only. Under normal load.
    53 Processes Running, including Edonkey, Email,
    Yahoo, MSN, Norton AntiVirus etc.....
    I used the Timedemo demo1.demo

    To run a Test, Run Doom 3, then bring down the console by pressing CTRL-ALT-~ (Tilde button)
    then type in timedemo demo1.demo wait for test to complete and run again if you wish.


    These things did not change.
    Anisotropic Filtering Method........Quality
    Texture Preference...................High Quality
    Mipmap Detail Level..................High Quality
    Wait for Vertical Sync................Application Preference
    TRUFORM™............................Application Preference

    1600x1200
    High Quality

    6x AA 16x AF: 286.0 seconds @ 7.5 FPS

    4x AA 8x AF: 194.3 seconds @ 11.1 FPS

    2x AA 4x AF: 134.5 seconds @ 16.0 FPS

    2x AA 2x AF: 135.4 seconds @ 15.9 FPS

    AA (App Pref) AF (App Pref): 102.5 seconds @ 20.9


    1280x1024
    High Quality

    6x AA 16x AF: 194.6 seconds @ 11 FPS

    4x AA 8x AF: 135.4 seconds @ 15.9 FPS

    2x AA 4x AF: 95.9 seconds @ 22.4 FPS

    2x AA 2x AF: 95.9 seconds @ 24.2 FPS

    AA (App Pref) AF (App Pref): 89.1 seconds @ 24.1


    1024x768
    High Quality

    6x AA 16x AF: 133.8 seconds @ 16 FPS

    4x AA 8x AF: 96.8 seconds @ 22.2 FPS

    2x AA 4x AF: 68.0 seconds @ 31.6 FPS

    2x AA 2x AF: 62.5 seconds @ 34.4 FPS

    AA (App Pref) AF (App Pref): 63.1 seconds @ 34.0


    The numbers seem low, but the game runs very very smooth on 1280x1024 and is very playable on 1600x1200.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sunderland, England
    Posts
    529

    Default Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    53 processes is really nasty. you would get much better scores if you got rid of some of them. try running the windows xp tweak guides
    <img src="http://gfx.statgfx.com/old/folding.cgi?&username=metallicat666&teamid=33272&t rans=yes&.jpg" alt="www.Statgfx.com" />

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: Doom 3 Benchmark Inconsistencies

    You could almost definitely run that at 1600x1200 (can'ts see your sig though, so no system...) at high quality maybe with AA or AF if you did some good tweaking. I have 11 processes when I start gaming, you have 53. Trust me, that's a big difference.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •