3DMark2003 Score: Radeon 9800 Pro

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Hey, All

How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
slower system than mine?

My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.

Thanks.
20 answers Last reply
More about 3dmark2003 score radeon 9800
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    No way you're gonna get 12000 in 3dmark2003 with a 9800 Pro unless something
    very odd is going on. You sure it's the same vid card and/or that it's not
    3dmark2001?

    "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1bd3ba0ce497eabd989693@news.charter.net...
    > Hey, All
    >
    > How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    > slower system than mine?
    >
    > My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    > driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    You're right, 12000 is kinda impossible. I think the machine I was
    referring to was using 3DMark2001.

    ---------------
    In article <JYmdnSiDm7NrhvfcRVn-vw@cablespeedmd.com>, JT [j@mail.com]
    says...
    > No way you're gonna get 12000 in 3dmark2003 with a 9800 Pro unless something
    > very odd is going on. You sure it's the same vid card and/or that it's not
    > 3dmark2001?
    >
    > "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bd3ba0ce497eabd989693@news.charter.net...
    > > Hey, All
    > >
    > > How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    > > slower system than mine?
    > >
    > > My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    > > driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:

    >Hey, All
    >
    >How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >slower system than mine?
    >
    >
    You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.

    >My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >
    That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    overclocked, I get 6100.


    --
    "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    www.inglostadt.com
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    version or something.

    Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    I would like it to be.

    ---------------
    In article <Wcpad.27733$QJ3.18609@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Inglo
    [ioo@??.¿¿¿] says...
    > On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >
    > >Hey, All
    > >
    > >How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    > >slower system than mine?
    > >
    > >
    > You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    > over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >
    > >My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    > >driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    > >
    > >Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    > That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    > who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    > overclocked, I get 6100.
    >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    version or something.

    Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    I would like it to be.

    -------------------------
    What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI drivers?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    version or something.

    Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    I would like it to be.
    ____________________________________________________________________


    At 800x600 at High Detail, everything on, including V-sync (triple buffered)
    I get 55fps in the timedemo.

    I also have a P4 3Ghz, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (cat 4.9), 1Ghz of Dual channel
    400Mhz RAM etc.

    What's your system scoring in the doom 3 timedemo then? (type timedemo demo
    1 in the console, run it twice)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:

    >On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >
    >>Hey, All
    >>
    >>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >>slower system than mine?
    >>
    >>
    >You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    >over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >
    >>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >>
    >>Thanks.
    >>
    >>
    >That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    >who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    >overclocked, I get 6100.

    WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
    proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:

    Aquamark3 ; 63,391
    3dmark01 ; 21,959
    3dmark03 ; 11,075
    3dmark05 ; 4912

    That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
    506/499.50.

    P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
    / 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
    DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
    120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
    FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home


    Pluvious
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:oiilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
    >
    >>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >>
    >>>Hey, All
    >>>
    >>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >>>slower system than mine?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    >>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >>
    >>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    >>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    >>overclocked, I get 6100.
    >
    > WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
    > proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
    >
    > Aquamark3 ; 63,391
    > 3dmark01 ; 21,959
    > 3dmark03 ; 11,075
    > 3dmark05 ; 4912
    >
    > That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
    > 506/499.50.
    >
    > P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
    > / 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
    > DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
    > 120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
    > FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
    >
    >
    > Pluvious
    >
    That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
    score for a 9800 Pro...
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:

    >
    >"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
    >news:oiilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
    >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >>>
    >>>>Hey, All
    >>>>
    >>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >>>>slower system than mine?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    >>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >>>
    >>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    >>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    >>>overclocked, I get 6100.
    >>
    >> WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
    >> proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
    >>
    >> Aquamark3 ; 63,391
    >> 3dmark01 ; 21,959
    >> 3dmark03 ; 11,075
    >> 3dmark05 ; 4912
    >>
    >> That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
    >> 506/499.50.
    >>
    >> P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
    >> / 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
    >> DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
    >> 120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
    >> FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
    >>
    >>
    >> Pluvious
    >>
    >That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
    >score for a 9800 Pro...
    >

    Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Pluvious
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
    use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
    resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.

    ---------------
    In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
    Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
    > "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    > Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    > version or something.
    >
    > Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    > performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    > I would like it to be.
    >
    > -------------------------
    > What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI drivers?
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
    FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.

    It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
    system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
    like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.

    Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal
    Requirements for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't
    understand. :((

    ---------------
    In article <416a87ae$0$16014$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, The
    Berzerker [Berzerker@wooooooo.com] says...
    > "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    > Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    > version or something.
    >
    > Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    > performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    > I would like it to be.
    > ____________________________________________________________________
    >
    >
    > At 800x600 at High Detail, everything on, including V-sync (triple buffered)
    > I get 55fps in the timedemo.
    >
    > I also have a P4 3Ghz, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (cat 4.9), 1Ghz of Dual channel
    > 400Mhz RAM etc.
    >
    > What's your system scoring in the doom 3 timedemo then? (type timedemo demo
    > 1 in the console, run it twice)
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 10/11/2004 11:56 AM Pluvious brightened our day with:

    >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>news:oiilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Hey, All
    >>>>>
    >>>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >>>>>slower system than mine?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    >>>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >>>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    >>>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    >>>>overclocked, I get 6100.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
    >>>proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
    >>>
    >>>Aquamark3 ; 63,391
    >>>3dmark01 ; 21,959
    >>>3dmark03 ; 11,075
    >>>3dmark05 ; 4912
    >>>
    >>>That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
    >>>506/499.50.
    >>>
    >>>P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
    >>>/ 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
    >>>DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
    >>>120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
    >>>FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Pluvious
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
    >>score for a 9800 Pro...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
    >
    >Pluvious
    >
    >
    >
    >
    I noticed the lack of clarity myself, but failed to rectify it. oops.

    --
    "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    www.inglostadt.com
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    New 9800 pro (oem) on Cat 4.9 and DirectX 9.0c
    640 megs pc2100 (3 generic sticks)
    AMD 2000+
    Abit KD7a motherboard
    WinXP Pro sp2
    80 gig 7200rpm HD
    C-Media 8738 5.1 sound


    Scores:
    3Dmark2003 - 5670

    Many problems were incurred in getting the correct drivers to load. Some my
    fault, others the software. Ati's "Control Center" is not exactly the best
    thing I think. I have always had some sort of problem with it on all my Ati
    cards over the years. I usually end up loading the Omegas to make things
    work good. They seem the most reliable. But this time, I think I have a
    good mix and the games look nice. This is up from same equipment with a
    9500 pro getting an average score in the 3800+ zone for mark03.

    "Inglo" <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote in message
    news:_tDad.28430$QJ3.14356@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    > On 10/11/2004 11:56 AM Pluvious brightened our day with:
    >
    >>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:oiilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Hey, All
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
    >>>>>>slower system than mine?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
    >>>>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
    >>>>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Thanks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
    >>>>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
    >>>>>overclocked, I get 6100.
    >>>>>
    >>>>WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
    >>>>proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
    >>>>
    >>>>Aquamark3 ; 63,391
    >>>>3dmark01 ; 21,959
    >>>>3dmark03 ; 11,075
    >>>>3dmark05 ; 4912
    >>>>
    >>>>That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
    >>>>506/499.50.
    >>>>
    >>>>P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
    >>>>/ 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
    >>>>DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
    >>>>120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
    >>>>FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Pluvious
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the
    >>>highest score for a 9800 Pro...
    >>>
    >>
    >>Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
    >>
    >>Pluvious
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > I noticed the lack of clarity myself, but failed to rectify it. oops.
    >
    > --
    > "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and
    > watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."
    >
    > Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    > www.inglostadt.com
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Go to this site and you can see some advanced tweaking options. Some of
    these help a bit for framerates without losing much quality.

    http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_8.html


    "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1bd4de4ea8e3b7a8989696@news.charter.net...
    > With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
    > use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
    > resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.
    >
    > ---------------
    > In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
    > Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
    >> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    >> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    >> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    >> version or something.
    >>
    >> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    >> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    >> I would like it to be.
    >>
    >> -------------------------
    >> What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI
    >> drivers?
    >>
    >>
    >>
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Btw, using some of those tweaks I was able to run at 1024x768 at High
    Settings. I have a 9800 Pro with a 2.4 P4 running @2.8. I do have a 1 gig of
    memory which may be helping some as well.

    "JT" <j@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:-6qdnVd7GsSr2PbcRVn-iw@cablespeedmd.com...
    > Go to this site and you can see some advanced tweaking options. Some of
    > these help a bit for framerates without losing much quality.
    >
    > http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_8.html
    >
    >
    > "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bd4de4ea8e3b7a8989696@news.charter.net...
    >> With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
    >> use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
    >> resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.
    >>
    >> ---------------
    >> In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
    >> Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
    >>> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
    >>> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
    >>> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
    >>> version or something.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
    >>> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
    >>> I would like it to be.
    >>>
    >>> -------------------------
    >>> What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI
    >>> drivers?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 10/11/2004 7:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:

    >At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
    >FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.
    >
    >It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
    >system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
    >like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.
    >
    >Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal
    >Requirements for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't
    >understand. :((
    >
    >
    >
    Turn on triple buffering in the openGL/3D settings of the control panel
    if you're going to use vsync. Have you got the Doom 3 1.1 patch?

    --
    "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    www.inglostadt.com
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:16:21 -0700, Spawn666948 <x@y.z> wrote:

    >With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
    >use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
    >resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.

    I still use the 4.4 drivers (and RefreshForce) on my 9700 Pro, Doom 3
    is playable at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF. I haven't tried all the
    later drivers, but the ones I have caused problems. I tried the latest
    Omega drivers the other day and my Doom 3 framerate was awful for 20
    seconds then the game crashed. The later drivers may be necessary for
    the top end ATI cards, but for the older ones, 4.4 are by far the best
    IMO.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Doom 3, hmmm ,been a while since I played it last, but I did the
    entire game in 1280x1024, 2nd highest settings. Was gettign around
    44 fps in a timedemo. No tweaks, card at 380\360.

    p4 3.0 gig, asus p4p800, Seagate 7200 ide drives, and kingston hyperx
    512 pc3200 ram. nothing overclocked.


    at the time it was the omega driver based on the 4.8 cats. Never had a
    issue with doom 3 at all, besides the fact that it was boring.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    What does Triple Buffering do ?
    I have not tried that setting. Does it increase visual quality ?
    Thanks

    "Inglo" <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote in message
    news:lHHad.11903$nj.6380@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > On 10/11/2004 7:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
    >
    >>At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
    >>FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.
    >>
    >>It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
    >>system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
    >>like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.
    >>
    >>Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal Requirements
    >>for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't understand. :((
    >>
    >>
    > Turn on triple buffering in the openGL/3D settings of the control panel if
    > you're going to use vsync. Have you got the Doom 3 1.1 patch?
    >
    > --
    > "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and
    > watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."
    >
    > Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    > www.inglostadt.com
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "RonK" <hereiam@homenow.com> wrote in message
    news:SxYad.28996$3C6.1030218@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > What does Triple Buffering do ?
    > I have not tried that setting. Does it increase visual quality ?
    > Thanks
    >

    Adds a third buffer to the card, or something...... use google to get an
    advanced answer. Either way, it'll allow you to get V-sync with virtually no
    difference to the framerate, if the game utilises it well. I think you might
    also be capable of getting temporal 2x anti-alias at no extra cost too,
    maybe.

    I use v-sync in doom 3 with absolutely zero difference to the framerate. The
    only disadvantage is that is uses more video memory, for this exra buffer.
    Haven't noticed any difference tbh (128MB card.)
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Dual Channel ATI Graphics