The Battlegrounds
For all of our benchmarks we used Doom 3's built in timedemo functionality. To benchmark Doom 3 yourself simply do the following while in Doom 3:
Bring up the console by hitting: CTRL + ALT + ~
Type: timedemo demo1
Then hit return and Doom 3's timedemo will run. The average frame rate for the demo will be reported after the run is complete. We ran all of our tests three times, disregarding the first score and taking the higher of the remaining two scores. We disregarded the first score because the first time the demo runs there is a lot of pausing as the demo gets cached, the remaining two runs are generally within 1% of one another.
Performance Test Configuration | |
Processor(s): | Socket-939 & Socket-754
Athlon 64/64 FX CPUs |
RAM: | 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd (2:3:3:7) |
Hard Drives | Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers | Intel Chipset Driver 6.0.0.1014 NVIDIA nForce Drivers: 4.27 |
Video Card(s): | NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra ATI Radeon 9800 Pro |
Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 4.7 NVIDIA ForceWare 61.77 |
Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
Motherboards: | Intel 875P NVIDIA nForce3 NVIDIA nForce2 Ultra |
59 Comments
View All Comments
michael2k - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Heh, what about frames/$ graphs?Da3dalus - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Lovely graphs, *pats my Athlon 64 3200+ while waiting for Doom 3*Another week for Doom 3 to hit our european shelves, damnit I hate waiting for something you americans already have :-/
elfy6x - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
I have a dual Opteron 246 setup, with 1Gb of ram, and a Radeon 9700 Pro. I'm not really a gamer, but I gave Doom 3 a shot, and it utilizes both of my CPU's when I play. I have nothing else running when I play the game. It doesn't tax both CPU's to 100% but one CPU fluctuates between 40-50% while the other one bounces around 10-20%. So something is processing two threads. Just my observation. :)PotatoMAN - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
I second the idea of benching memory and video memory at AT for doom week. I have a 3200+ A64 and I am wondering if I am starving it more with a 9800 pro (128) or with my 512mb of RAM. Thanks AT for being awesome!Gooberslot - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
I bet a 1-1.2ghz P3 or Athlon would cut it for a minimum. Just go back and look at the old benchmarks of the P4 1.5ghz on here. Only in Quake3 was the P4 on top. In UT the P4 actually tied with the P3 1ghz. Pathetic. Stating minimum requirements based on those old Williamete P4's is very misleading. Perhaps the real minimum cpu requirements should have been 1.2ghz P3 or Athlon, 1.5ghz P4, or 2.4ghz Celeron. :)matman326 - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Man I always knew that an athlon 64 system was powerfull but a 180 dollar proc. beating Intels Extremly Expensive 1000 dollar proc is just mind blowing. So much for the Netburst design kicking butt.AtaStrumf - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
If you could find some time, I'd like to see a comparison between 128 and 256 MB R9800Pro, and 512 RAM and 1024 MB RAM. Basicly how much of a difference do video and system RAM make.at80eighty - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
dammit! looks like im gonna celebrate Christmas with a loan..grrrr... : )WooDaddy - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Two words:AMD ROX!!!
I've been an AMD user since the 386 days and even had a NexGen processor (pre-pentium, K5). Never went Intel, never will (maybe)...
Thatsright,
Naw.. The charts don't lie. But to be fair, let's wait for the Intel-funded people (aka Tom's (blow)hardware) to put up their benchmarks. 10 bucks says they'll make all kinds of excuses to why Intel procs aren't fast enough.
Regs - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Wow. Good info. Dual channel offers nothing. And the socket 939 2.2 Ghz CPU offers nothing over my 3000 A64 which costs 200 dollars less. Given that if you play on higher resolutions.