Doom III - summer 2004!

[Jon M]

Originally Posted by Richard M

I changed it, haven't played the game yet but I ran the timedemo and got an average of 43.3fps at 1024x768, High Quality (8xAF), max details, no AA.
What's everyone else getting ATM?

(Type "timedemo demo1" into the console)

those tweaks won't give any FPS increase whatsoever.. all it helps with is cacheing textures.. which stops the fps lag that you often get when the scenery or action gets more complex

[Richard M]

Yeah I know that, I assume it uses your system RAM for this?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Richard M

I changed it, haven't played the game yet but I ran the timedemo and got an average of 43.3fps at 1024x768, High Quality (8xAF), max details, no AA.
What's everyone else getting ATM?

(Type "timedemo demo1" into the console)

41.7 with the same settings, that's on an Athlon XP 3200 at normal clock speed, generic slow cheap PC3200 and a Radeon 9800 pro also at normal clock speed.

[TheBlueRaja]

Hmmm,
Same spec as bifta - but im only getting 35.4 WTF?

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by Bifta

41.7 with the same settings, that's on an Athlon XP 3200 at normal clock speed, generic slow cheap PC3200 and a Radeon 9800 pro also at normal clock speed.

That's a pretty damn good score, at least I know I'll be able to play it while my mobo is RMA'd.
How far into the game are you BTW?

Originally Posted by theblueraja

Hmmm,
Same spec as bifta - but im only getting 35.4 WTF?

Which mobo?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Richard M

That's a pretty damn good score, at least I know I'll be able to play it while my mobo is RMA'd.
How far into the game are you BTW?

I haven't sent the transmission yet but I've got some card thing with it on from that dude, and there's big fat flying things floating about, not the skulls (which are damn annoying).

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by Bifta

I haven't sent the transmission yet but I've got some card thing with it on from that dude, and there's big fat flying things floating about, not the skulls (which are damn annoying).

Haha, don't get bored - trust me, what you've got coming is well worth it.

[Stephen]

I have just entered hell. The graphics and details are so amazing.

I ran the timedemo and got 21.4fps. That is at 1024x768 high detail on an Athlon 2100xp, 768 DDR Ram 2700, 9600XT 128MB.

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by DarthYoda

I have just entered hell. The graphics and details are so amazing.

Forget the graphics, the sound is amazing!
Oh, good luck BTW.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Forget the graphics, the sound is amazing!
Oh, good luck BTW.

True the sound is great, all that screaming and people praying I have heard on a few of the levels. carzy stuff. espec as there is thunder storm outside while I am playing.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Bifta

41.7 with the same settings, that's on an Athlon XP 3200 at normal clock speed, generic slow cheap PC3200 and a Radeon 9800 pro also at normal clock speed.

Bifta - why have you got such a high score - im curious, the highest i can get is 37.1 with the tweaks mentioned earlier in this thread - yet your still about 5fps higher than me AND my memory is running at DDR 438 (whereas your is default).

There must be a difference here somewhere as i have a 9800 pro, 3200 (albeit a 2500+ OC'd to 3200) and Twin-X Dual DDR 3200 running at DDR 440.

Everything in the Graphics is at High Detail, no AA but with all the other options on, and my Ati Drivers (4.9) are at default settings too.

And thats running on the Nforce 2 NF7-s board which is regarded as one of the best Nforce 2 boards out there.

Yet the difference is quite high percentage wise, are you giving us the FIRST run score or the second as cacheing makes a big difference too?

Whats going on?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by theblueraja

Bifta - why have you got such a high score - im curious, the highest i can get is 37.1 with the tweaks mentioned earlier in this thread - yet your still about 5fps higher than me AND my memory is running at DDR 438 (whereas your is default).

There must be a difference here somewhere as i have a 9800 pro, 3200 (albeit a 2500+ OC'd to 3200) and Twin-X Dual DDR 3200 running at DDR 440.

Everything in the Graphics is at High Detail, no AA but with all the other options on, and my Ati Drivers (4.9) are at default settings too.

And thats running on the Nforce 2 NF7-s board which is regarded as one of the best Nforce 2 boards out there.

Yet the difference is quite high percentage wise, are you giving us the FIRST run score or the second as cacheing makes a big difference too?

Whats going on?

That was the first run score, the 3200+ is a 400mhz FSB version on an Asus A7N8X deluxe Nforce 2 board, everything is running at stock speeds under XP Pro, DX9.0c, Catalyst 4.9 beta (which were set to high quality with just AA and AF turned off, vsync forced on). There's nothing else I can think of that would make it any faster than yours I'm afraid :|

edit: As it turns out, the memory I'm running is a mix of PC2700 (2 x 256) and PC3200 (all crap, no brand stuff) ... which should theoretically make it slower.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Bifta

That was the first run score, the 3200+ is a 400mhz FSB version on an Asus A7N8X deluxe Nforce 2 board, everything is running at stock speeds under XP Pro, DX9.0c, Catalyst 4.9 beta (which were set to high quality with just AA and AF turned off, vsync forced on). There's nothing else I can think of that would make it any faster than yours I'm afraid :|

edit: As it turns out, the memory I'm running is a mix of PC2700 (2 x 256) and PC3200 (all crap, no brand stuff) ... which should theoretically make it slower.

****!

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by theblueraja

****!

The only thing I can think of is that I've pruned a lot of the services, I have no swap file and it's installed on a completely empty drive, not sure that'd make any difference though. I've also not applied any of the tweaks to smooth out the HD access.

[Richard M]

Doesn't the XP 2500 have a smaller cache?