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 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
thatsright - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Great article, but just one quibble. Is it just me, or does it sound like AMD paid AnandTech for the last sentence of the article: "In the end, the winner of the final battle is clear: the AMD Athlon 64 is the processor for Doom 3"It sounds like a perfect quote from the AMD marketing dept! LOL
DAPUNISHER - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Good stuff! That was the most entertaining set of benchies I've seen in awhile. D3 is evidently turning out to be a better benching tool than game =)kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Dear anandtech,Please do a similar benchmarking wtih system memmorry.
Sincerely,
me
ViRGE - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
#9, Carmack has stated that Doom 3 does not have SMP support.CrimsonDeath - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
How about pumped up XP-M's? I got one running at 2700Mhz, that would make it better than most cpu's out there.Overclock till it burns, then overclock more!
punko - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Guess my XP 1800+ ain't gonna cut it . . .kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Well, my 2800+ is staying in my box!kherman - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
In the days of GPU shootouts, this article is an EXCELENT idea! Good work! Still have to read it though.It's funny to, because I'm contemplating a move to 1 gig of memmory.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Just to clarify before the comments start, there are TWO 3400+ Athlon 64 as you will see in checking at New Egg for instance. The NEW 3400+ is Socket 754, runs at 2.4GHz and has 512k cache. The original 3400+ is still available and is Socket 754, runs at 2.2GHz, and has 1MB cache.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - link
Please keep in mind that the small Athlon 64 increases in Dual-Channel and Cache-size are cumulative. While it's true that Dual-Channel only adds about 3% to A64 performance and 1MB cache only adds about 5%, the combination adds 8 to 10% improved performance. The FX53 is the ONLY chip that combines BOTH 1MB cache and Dual-Channel memory and is 8 to 10% faster than a comparable chip using Single-Channel (Socket 754) and 512MB cache.The Dual-Channel 1MB FX53 should be about 8% to 10% faster than the latest Newcastle SC 512K 3400+ even though both run run at 2.4Ghz. Another interesting point is that since Cache mattered more in Doom3 than Dual-Channel, a 3700+ (SC, 1MB cache) might actually be faster in Doom3 than a 3800+ (DC, 512MB). This was certainly true in Anand's tests of the 3400+ (SC, 1MB0, which was faster than the 3500+ (DC, 512MB).
Whether the top-performing FX53 is worth the $811 price is up to you, but it is still a bargain in Doom3 compared to the 3.4EE that is 18% slower and still sells for $1000.