boe wrote in message ...
I'm curious to find out the differences in performance for Doom3 on these
three cards on a 2.8 or 3GHz PC prefereably with 1 GIG of RAM.
I'd like to know what FPS you get at 4 or 8x aa and 1024x768 or higher if
you would mind sharing
I see a lot of posts with different equipment and different cards but these
specific examples would be very informative for me if you wouldn't mind
sharing if you have any of these systems.
Thanks
I have the 9600xt on a 2.8 with 1 Gig of RAM.
I get about 14 FPS in timedemo with 4aa at 800 x 600 but I'm curious to see
what others are getting with the same card (in case mine isn't optimized)
and to see about the other two cards to see if I could get to see Doom in a
much higher quality scenario.
I've got a 9800Pro+P4 2.8@3Ghz on P4P800 mobo, Catalyst 4.9 OS=W2K
Barely installed, both catalyst and game; So it's unoptimised yet.
Doom3 HighQuality settings always; Everything ON in advanced option except Vsynch.
I've done a few tests for different AA. second run always.
1024x768 HQ No-AA 35.6fps
1024x768 HQ 2xAA 35.5fps
1024x768 HQ 4xAA 35.5fps(*) ,,,, Ah ?.. Looks like I'm gonna go to this one.
(*) I really change the settings and restart the game each time, as Doom3 suggests.
So, in theory, the only reason why the results are so close is that the card+drivers do the AA really
like piece of cake.. I know for a fact, AA is one of the strong point of ATI 9800Pro, aside fill-rate.
Now for curiosity.
1024x768 HQ 8xAA 35.3fps ... Almost suspicious.
So I checked if the Catalyst drivers default settings lock the AA, and find that it chould be set by the
application.. But I try to force it to 8xAA just to see... And it allows only to force it to 2x, 4x or 6x.
So I'm kinda stuck here not being able to check if 8x can be forced. Then I shall try 6x, leaving D3
set for 8x... Who knows.
OH BOY !.. That's different now...Slooooow. Yet, the visual difference is not worth the framerate loss.
1024x768 HQ Catalyst forced AA to 6x.. Doom3 set to 8xAA ..... 17fps
Visually, aside the fact everything runs slower. I'm not able to tell the real difference.
And since it's so inconsistant; I'm forcing the Catalyst to 2xAA, and Doom3 as well. To be sure.
I test again. Its now much faster...but not like originally.
1024x768 HQ Catalyst forced AA to 2x.. Doom3 set to 2xAA ..... 31.9fps
I can't conclude anything else for now than, Doom3 AA settings are AFU with Catalyst defaults.
And for sake of Catalyst settings; I changed the OpenGL options to 'performance' instead of
high quality... I should get now better then 35.6fps.
Just to mention that I tried the Ultra High Quality settings, and Got something like 26fps.
1024x768 HQ 2xAA 34.4fps !!.. Ah ha...a whole 1fps lost now
There are few hypothesis to explain that; Most likely for 1fps, it could be the 'uneven' results
of the timedemo; Yet, the 'second run' seem rather consistent so far'. Or another possibility.
It could be that The Catalyst 4.9 does a better job when we do not use the 'CUSTOM' settings.
Other things are possible, but I won't get into those.
For a final amusing test; I've tried the ULTRA High Quality settings; 2x AA at 1024x768...
1024x768 UltraHQ NoAA 27.6fps
So the Ultra Textures are not really killing my performance; But it's still taking too much fps out.
I've tried the SAME settings at 800x600. Hoping for a slight fps increase..
800x600 UltraHQ NoAA 33.9fps .... Impressive.
I'm gonna try the real game at that UltraHQ settings now, since the difference from 1024x768HQ,
is less than 2fps average...
So far the game experience is 'TERRORIZING'.. Iwas almost shaking after a few monsters got
me down a dark spot, out of ammo.. I'm not used to that much terror in game. This is awesome.
Any suggestions welcomed. Or a comment to decide if UHQ is worth it over HQ.
Regards,
Art
