mrX August 9, 2004 Share mrX GC Alumni August 9, 2004 Forgot to take my read-only off the config, so my numbers are: 800x600 high 41.7 FPS ultra 26.0 FPS 1024x768 high 33.9 FPS ultra 21.9 FPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc August 9, 2004 Share soul .gc Member August 9, 2004 Got my memory - Thanks AK Installed the new motherboard, P4 chip, 1GB Ram, and my 5600XT 256MB vid card. I format my hard drive and install XP from scratch. I install all drivers for sound and video from scratch. I load up Doom3. 13.1 FPS at medium quality, 640x480. I hate this poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 9, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 9, 2004 Maybe it's cuz you have a P4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc August 9, 2004 Share soul .gc Member August 9, 2004 Bah - I had a 2500+ Barton overclocked before and it got 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 9, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 9, 2004 See if this helps: Go to "DoomConfig.cfg" (Find the line: seta image_cacheMegs "128" If you have over a gig of mem use 256. seta image_cacheMinK "2560" (ten times the original value of the cache megs setting. It was at 200 when my cache megs were defaulted to 20) seta image_useCache "1" You will get an fps increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Kill3r August 9, 2004 Share All Kill3r Member August 9, 2004 5600XT is killing you, HUGE bottleneck for your PC. Glad to hear you got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 9, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 9, 2004 5600XT is killing you, HUGE bottleneck for your PC. Glad to hear you got it. That is? I have a 2200+, 1.5gig 3200, and a 5600ultra. I get 20fps with 800x600 medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Kill3r August 9, 2004 Share All Kill3r Member August 9, 2004 then he has somthing set wrong, or a driver isn't installed correctly. He should be ahead of you with a P4, more ram doesn't up the FPS by much at all. Soul, are you sure AA/AF settings are off ? chipset drivers installed for mobo, current drivers for the video card ? whats the difference between an Ultra and an XT ? I stopped keeping track of all of nVidia's names long ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman August 9, 2004 Author Share Birdman Member August 9, 2004 Idk, but I still blame the video card. If im not mistaking the 5600XT is pretty much the same speed as a 5200(which would get about the performance that you are getting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini_Me August 9, 2004 Share Mini_Me GC Founder August 9, 2004 weird #s here... p4 1.6, 1GB pc150, 128MB 9600xt 640x480 low - 13.9 >everything on except aa and vsynch low - 16.6 >everything off (high detail stuff under advanced) 1024x768 ultra - 13.2 ran again 13.3 there is a visable difference between the low/ultra yet <1 fps differnce? either way the game is unplayable for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc August 9, 2004 Share soul .gc Member August 9, 2004 AA - Off Vsynch - Off AF - Application Controlled Current Bios Current Creative drivers for Live!5.1 Updating Nvidia now...The ones I had were a few months old. Hmm...Directx is only 8.0. Updating it now as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc August 10, 2004 Share soul .gc Member August 10, 2004 Hmmm....so it appears having a good version of DirectX may help haha. I just tried it at 640x480 medium and got 38fps. I just switched to 8x6 High and am testing it now... ...test complete - 22fps that way. Ok - I feel better now. Now if Someone wants to sell me a 9800Ppro for $50, let me know so I can increase this more...or a 3.2Ghz P4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Kill3r August 10, 2004 Share All Kill3r Member August 10, 2004 glad your all sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rackish August 10, 2004 Share rackish Member August 10, 2004 (edited) 52.1fps @ 1024x768 w/ no AA vsync or whatever on medium (due to my text being messed up in high and ultra, read other topic) SPECS: P43.2stock 1GBPC3200 Radeon9800XTstock Edited August 10, 2004 by rackish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman August 10, 2004 Author Share Birdman Member August 10, 2004 52.1fps @ 1024x768 w/ no AA vsync or whatever on medium (due to my text being messed up in high and ultra, read other topic) SPECS: P43.2stock 1GBPC3200 Radeon9800XTstock Coo. We have similar systems and get about the same scores. I get 42 FPS in High Quality @ 1024x768 You see any red and white snow while playing multiplayer for awhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 10, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 10, 2004 Idk, but I still blame the video card. If im not mistaking the 5600XT is pretty much the same speed as a 5200(which would get about the performance that you are getting). FX5600XT FX5200 My FX5600 Ultra Memory and core are faster between the 5200 and the 5600XT. The ultra has a faster core then the XT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman August 10, 2004 Author Share Birdman Member August 10, 2004 That's with the 5200NU. At one time there was a 5200Ultra that is about the same speed as a 5600XT is now. They have just changed numbers of cards and rearranged prices since I suppose. But the 5200Nu is no where near 5600XT speeds. The 5200Ultra was and is. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0LDE= That article matches up the 5200Ultra and 5600Ultra. Note, however, that the 5600Ultra is faster than the 5600XT. So my original statement; If im not mistaking the 5600XT is pretty much the same speed as a 5200(which would get about the performance that you are getting). stands if the 5200 series I was talking about were an Ultra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 10, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 10, 2004 ah Ok I give you teh official *BULLET*(TradeMark) Seal of aproval! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman August 10, 2004 Author Share Birdman Member August 10, 2004 ah Ok I give you teh official *BULLET*(TradeMark) Seal of aproval! Thx man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet-401 August 10, 2004 Share bullet-401 Member August 10, 2004 teehee! *laughs like a little school girl* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillow_Head August 11, 2004 Share Brillow_Head Member August 11, 2004 Hm, at 1024*768 I get 17.6 med 800*600 18.6 med I still play at 1024*768 on med with no prolems tho. Need a video card upgrade I run GF4 4400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman August 11, 2004 Author Share Birdman Member August 11, 2004 I added another 512MB of RAM to my system for Doom 3 and couldn't notice any difference in load times. I still had to run the time demo twice to get a good FPS that was representative of actual gameplay. UT 2k4 loads a lot quicker with 1GB of RAM though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simkiller December 5, 2004 Share simkiller Member December 5, 2004 (edited) With everything on the absolute hightest I get 41.3 fps. Athlon 64 3500 2.2 gig 1 gig kingston ram X800 XT Edited December 5, 2004 by simkiller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lazerus February 9, 2005 Share Guest Lazerus Guests February 9, 2005 This might help clear things up. The higher quality effects are built specifically for 256 + thats PLUS!! MB video cards ( doom guy interview). The real highend stuff chews up 512 MB for Vid storage. In the end, a lot of ram can help make up for a smaller vid card ( the game was built knowing that no-one has 512 vid cards). IE : I use a Ti4600 w/128. But, I have a gig of ram. When I crank it up ( yea- playable- not bad ), the vid stuff uses 128 from my card, and 384 of my ram for the ultra quality play. If you tried to do this with same card, and 512 ram, you're toast. Having 512 ram and a 256 MB vid card would do 'okay'. Even though you're card rocks, youd only have 256 MB of ram left for the game/windows/etc.... its gonna hurt. Also, as a side note, with the FPS thing. Yeah its primarily for the MP side of the game. Somehow, the FPS is tied into the communication with the server. Having an extremely high FPS allows you to communicate much faster with the server, giving a HUGE advantage over slower end machines. When my PC was brand new, I still had my old Q3 settings loaded for MAX fps and tweaks... got about 350+ fps.... crashed a server.....twice. With the fps capped, that 'exploit?' is removed from the game. Just a sidenote from the peanut gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruten April 12, 2005 Share Kruten Member April 12, 2005 Doom 3 ran fine on the family computer at medium settings. Athlon XP 2000+ Ti4200 128MB 512MB PC2100 All at default speed. Don't know what the FPS was though. The computer's been upgraded and my copy of D3 has a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now