Doom3 is real slow on my pc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugo Drax
  • Start date Start date
H

Hugo Drax

I bought doom3 at bestbuy today and the FPS hover around 29-30 and drop to
20fps on my 3.2GHZ/800mhz+9800PRO. What the heck gives am I doing something
wrong I figured at 1024x768 no AA I should expect 60fps at least.
 
Hugo said:
I bought doom3 at bestbuy today and the FPS hover around 29-30 and drop to
20fps on my 3.2GHZ/800mhz+9800PRO. What the heck gives am I doing something
wrong I figured at 1024x768 no AA I should expect 60fps at least.
Click to expand...

I would expect you to be getting 0 FPS since it's not out yet.
 
Hugo Drax said:
I bought doom3 at bestbuy today and the FPS hover around 29-30 and drop to
20fps on my 3.2GHZ/800mhz+9800PRO. What the heck gives am I doing something
wrong I figured at 1024x768 no AA I should expect 60fps at least.
Click to expand...

I thought Doom3 ships on Aug. 3?
 
Hugo Drax said:
I bought doom3 at bestbuy today and the FPS hover around 29-30 and
drop to 20fps on my 3.2GHZ/800mhz+9800PRO. What the heck gives am I
doing something wrong I figured at 1024x768 no AA I should expect
60fps at least.
Click to expand...

I'm getting 40+ FPS with a 2.53Ghz P4 and Ti4200 @ 1024x768 2xAA. You are
definitely doing something wrong. Try turning the overclocking screw on
the 9800 clockwise until you see visual artifacts, then back off 1/4 turn
and benchmark again.
 
Well, since 50 is a minimum. :P
Click to expand...

The actual minimum FPS is 30. This number is not magical, but is high
enough to allow for smooth enough animation. (Besides, that number is
lower than the reaction time of most humans.) Project IGI is a great
example of this: it only has 30 FPS, but it does not vary as most games do.

In most cases, the FPS shown for games is only an average. It does not
contain information on how much the FPS jumps around, how often it drops
below the critical FPS mark, and so on.
 
Mac Cool said:
I'm getting 40+ FPS with a 2.53Ghz P4 and Ti4200 @ 1024x768 2xAA. You are
definitely doing something wrong. Try turning the overclocking screw on
the 9800 clockwise until you see visual artifacts, then back off 1/4 turn
and benchmark again.
Click to expand...

Cool thanks, I never knew what the purpose of that little plastic
screwdriver they ship with was for.
 
Raymond said:
The actual minimum FPS is 30. This number is not magical, but is high
enough to allow for smooth enough animation. (Besides, that number is
lower than the reaction time of most humans.)
Click to expand...

'Reaction time' isn't a good gauge as 'perception' times are much, much
faster. And by that I mean something that 'catches' attention (such as
movement in the peripheral vision field).

The human 'reaction' to it may be 'slow' by comparison, but then you never
react if you don't notice it at all.
 
How hell did you buy the game if it's not oficially out until beginning og
August.
 
David Maynard said:
'Reaction time' isn't a good gauge as 'perception' times are much, much
faster. And by that I mean something that 'catches' attention (such as
movement in the peripheral vision field).
Click to expand...


The original Doom Engine was locked at 30 FPS :)
Most Doom ports had this limit still until now.
 
Grieve said:
The original Doom Engine was locked at 30 FPS :)
Most Doom ports had this limit still until now.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the merits of the game design, I was
talking about the design of human beings.
 
bk039 said:
The actual minimum FPS is 30. This number is not magical, but is high
enough to allow for smooth enough animation. (Besides, that number is
lower than the reaction time of most humans.) Project IGI is a great
example of this: it only has 30 FPS, but it does not vary as most games do.

In most cases, the FPS shown for games is only an average. It does not
contain information on how much the FPS jumps around, how often it drops
below the critical FPS mark, and so on.
Click to expand...

Well, I just remember reading somewhere that for arcade games the 50 fps
should be the minimum. When I look back at playing Quake2, 30-35 fps was
never enough for me.
 
Smola said:
Well, I just remember reading somewhere that for arcade games the 50 fps
should be the minimum. When I look back at playing Quake2, 30-35 fps was
never enough for me.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but frame rates over 35 or so FPS
seems to have a "glassy", unnatural look to it. 30 seems to be
the "magic number" for me, when it comes to realism.

(notice how live or video taped NTSC footage seems to have a higher FPS
than the "real world?". am i the only one who notices this?
 
David Besack said:
I would expect you to be getting 0 FPS since it's not out yet.
Click to expand...

He must've imported a time machine from Brazil (extremely obscure
Simpsons halloween reference :)
 
Proprclr said:
I don't know about anyone else, but frame rates over 35 or so FPS
seems to have a "glassy", unnatural look to it. 30 seems to be
the "magic number" for me, when it comes to realism.
Click to expand...

There is nothing about a higher 'FPS' that would 'detract' from realism.
More likely is there is some other factor with generating the images that
go INTO the 'higher FPS' that causes the effect you perceive.

The human eye/brain combination does a lot of 'interpretation' and causes
things one might think are irrelevant to sometimes have dramatic effects.
As just one example, the eye/brain makes 'predictions' about movement,
which is one reason why fixed frame rate video appears as smooth motion.
But if the frame rate is not constant, like some versions of 3/2 pull down,
a fast moving object will appear as TWO objects because the brain thinks,
based on movement in the previous frames, that it should be 'here' when
it's still 'there', so the 'there' observation gets perceived as another one.

Not saying that's what you were seeing but if, for example, to get the
'higher' frame rates the game simply inserts a few additional frames of the
same image, appropriately interspersed to make up for the needed extra
frames, then the eye/brain will not see it as 'natural' because the
movement rapidly stop/starts every time an extra frame is inserted.
(notice how live or video taped NTSC footage seems to have a higher FPS
than the "real world?". am i the only one who notices this?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by a "higher FPS than the 'real world'".
 
I don't know about anyone else, but frame rates over 35 or so FPS
seems to have a "glassy", unnatural look to it. 30 seems to be
the "magic number" for me, when it comes to realism.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the problem is that an average rate of 35 fps will
eventually fall to 8-10 fps when the action becomes two crowdy (have I
said this right? :) ).
So, average rate of 60 fps will ensure you at least 30 fps in any
situation.

(notice how live or video taped NTSC footage seems to have a higher FPS
than the "real world?". am i the only one who notices this?
Click to expand...

I did notice that too.
 
(e-mail address removed) (Proprclr) said:
I don't know about anyone else, but frame rates over 35 or so FPS
seems to have a "glassy", unnatural look to it. 30 seems to be
the "magic number" for me, when it comes to realism.

(notice how live or video taped NTSC footage seems to have a higher FPS
than the "real world?". am i the only one who notices this?
Click to expand...

http://mikhailtech.com/articles/editorials/fps/
 
Back
Top