Midrange Tests: Team DM
Here we will take a look at most of the cards in people's computers today. Included in this catagory are last generation's midrange and high end $500 cards (as those have now been relegated down in performance due to NV40 and R420).The first graph we will look at ties the high end cards down to this level and shows just how much punch these guys pack in relation to the rest of the line up.
All the cards in this section are playable at 1024x768 with all the advanced options on at each of the first 3 quality settings with the exception of the 5700 Ultra and 9600 XT. In some cases these cards are borderline, but we really don't feel that any less than 40 frames per second is playable in this game (and we would perfer 45).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
kmmatney - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
The Sunday BestBuy advetisement has Celeron desktops with integrated graphics advertised, with Doom3 shown in the monitor window. What a crock!Zoomer - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
You might try running a 9700pro with 9500pro's gpu clock and 1/2 of its mem clock to try and simulate a 9500pro.Would be pretty interesting to compare against if you finally manage to get a real 9500pro. :)
Btw, what about more exotic grapgics chipsets? ;)
bastula - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
Do you happen to have a GeForce 4 MX (64 MB) to try? Since they said it should be playable with that card, I was curious to know how that would compare to the cards you have listed (more specifically, the Radeon 9200 and FX 5700).Thanks!
Good comparison though, appreciate the hard work and loss of sleep. You should get some rest. :)
DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
the gf4 line is actually a fairly widely adopted platform, and the minimum requirements for Doom3 are gf4 mx or better (iirc) ... the tnt2 wouldn't run doom3.I thought about trying the intel integrated out, but then decided that I was sane and could not do such a thing.
mena805 - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
They also forgot the 5900XT for some reason. This is a MUCH better performing card than the crappy 5700 and 5500's.cosmotic - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
why did you pick the 4400 as the low end nvidia? why not run a more mainstreme card like TNT2s or Intel? Or Rage 128? thats what most customers have, right? Maybe some GF2 MX. The funny thing is that new computers at best buy come with this sort of shit up until recently. Although intel seems to be managing this still.Where did they marketing for the intel graphics come from? Extremely what? shitty? slow? worthless?
Maybe they should have called it intel:
abysmal
usable
painful
weak
worth-less-than-the-sylicon-its-printed-on
... grpahics.
Genx87 - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
Buy Doom3 and burnout your 400 dollar video card :)DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
Sorry guys, I don't have a 9500 or an 8500 around the lab ... You're right about the 9500 though; the lack of sleep is catching up with me ... goodnight.punko - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
I was hoping for a commend about my old ATI 8500.bearxor - Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - link
If I'm not mistaken, the 9550 is not the same as a 9500 Pro. I think that you're right that it is a underclocked 9600, which would mean only 4 pipes. The 9500 Pro is exactly like the 9700 Pro except with only a 128-bit memory bus.I have a 9500 Pro, and am extremely intrested in seeing how the 8 pipes of the 9500 Pro match up to the 4 Pipe + Higher clock speed of the 9600 series.
I have no real intrest in Doom 3, so I've been looking for those benchmarks, but every frame rate report I've read so far just skips from the 9200 to the 9600, ignoring the 9500, even though its a very different GPU from the 9600.
In other words, no a 9550 wouldn't help.